Judgment :- RAJU, J. The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 14-10-1990 in W.P. No. 8857 of 1982 whereunder the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed seeking for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Land Commissioner, Madras dated 16-11-1981 confirming the final statement published by the Authorised Officer Land Reforms, Coimbatore, dated 11-6-1980 and consequently direct the exclusion of the lands exempted, ordered as follows :- "In this view, while dismissing the Writ Petition it is ordered that the Land Commissioner shall examine the correctness of the legality and propriety of the order of the Authorised Officer against which F2/F.P.38/81 (L.Ref.) was filed and passed revised orders in accordance with law on or before 30-4-1991 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner for a personal hearing." * 2. Aggrieved against the observation made in the form of a direction, the Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. K. Subramanian learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. Ramamoorthy, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent. 4. After the matter was heard for some time, it was brought to our notice that subsequently the first appellant has passed orders carrying out the directions made by the learned single Judge in the order under Appeal and that, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in deciding this appeal at this stage. We directed the learned Special Government Pleader to verify the position and it is since placed before us that the Land Commissioner, Madras in his proceedings dated 23-3-1991 has passed revised and fresh orders carring out the directions of this Court. In so doing also, the claim of the respondent has been rejected not only on other grounds but also the ground of challenge made by seeking for exclusion of certain lands even by accepting alternate surplus lands. Aggrieved against the said revised orders passed, it appears the matter has since been pursued before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and the matter is still pending before the Tribunal. 5. Aggrieved against the said revised orders passed, it appears the matter has since been pursued before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and the matter is still pending before the Tribunal. 5. On consideration of the materials on record and taking into account also the subsequent developments noticed supra, we are of the view that it would be a futile exercise to undertake an adjudication of the grievance at this stage when the first appellant who has been directed by the learned single Judge to pass revised order has also complied with the direction and passed such an order and the legality and propriety of the same is also subject matter of further proceedings before the competent statutory Tribunal. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the best course would be to allow the parties to vindicate their respective stands or rights in the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. On that view we hold that nothing further survivs for our consideration in this writ appeal and the writ appeal shall stand dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. No costs. Appeal dismissed.